is one of the most common responses I get when I talk to people (usually liberals) about horizontal power structures. It comes down to some version of "Well, that sounds nice, but what about the bad actors?" I think the logic that follows from that fact is backwards. The standard response to this issue is to build vertical power structures. To appoint a ruling class that can supposedly "manage" the bad actors. But this ignores the obvious: vertical power structures are magnets for narcissists. They don’t neutralize those people. They empower them. They give them legitimacy and insulation from consequences. They concentrate power precisely where it’s most dangerous. Horizontal societies have always had ways of handling antisocial behavior. (Highly recommend Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm. He studied hundreds of forager societies, overall done amazing work.) Exile, public shaming, revocable leadership, and distributed decision-making all worked and often worked better than what we do now. Pre-civilized societies didn’t let power-hungry individuals take over. They stopped them. We used to know how to deal with bad actors. The idea of a "power vacuum" only makes sense if you believe power must be held at the top. If you diffuse power horizontally, there is no vacuum to fill. There’s just shared responsibility. That may feel unfamiliar, but it’s not impossible. We’ve done it before. Most of human history was built on it. The real question isn't whether bad actors exist. It's how we choose to deal with them. Do we build systems that make it harder for them to dominate others, or ones that practically roll out the red carpet? I think this opens up a more useful conversation.
What if we started seriously discussing tactics for dealing with domination-seeking behavior?
What mechanisms help us identify and isolate that kind of behavior without reproducing the same old coercive structures?
How do we build systems that are resilient to sabotage without falling into authoritarian logic?
I’d love to hear your guys’ thoughts.
I love it when people start asking the right questions. I think the absolute mess of responses just goes to show that this is an avenue of discussion that hasn't been pursued nearly enough in leftist circles.
We've interacted before - you may remember my comments on an earlier post of yours. I am generally of the position that narcissism lies at the core of all of the issues that anarchism is fundamentally trying to solve. If we can solve the issue of narcissism in society, then everything else more or less falls into place (though there are a lot of misconception about what is and is not hierarchy that gets in the way of seeing that for a lot of people, apparently - I'll try to address some of that).
Since we can reduce our political/social problems down to this particular psychological problem (or at least I claim that we can, more or less), then we can try to understand hoe we might address those political/social problems by understanding how one addresses this psychological problem. Unfortunately, we immediately run into a bit of a trouble. There is no known effective treatment for this personality type/disorder. When we consider that we're talking about trying to change a person's personality, this sort of make sense, and it make additional sense when we consider that impaired empathy generally shows up on a brain scan as a sort of brain damage. In other words, our options are severely limited at the individual level. We also know that this personality type is extremely stable over the lifetime of the individual.
There are lots of things we might be able to argue from that position, but one point that I really want to highlight is that we cannot expect that we can make this problem go away simply by changing the material or social conditions of these people. Even a dedicated therapy effort doesn't really work. While we can largely prevent the creation of these individuals in the first place if we were to create the right social/cultural environment (most are made as infants and children by a variety of bad parenting practices), we cannot completely prevent them from occurring (some are simply born this way - about 1% of the population as I had said before). As such, the solution to this problem isn't going to be a simple change in initial conditions, but rather an ongoing process that is baked into the fabric of society itself.
Let me touch on the issue of how we went from a bunch of societies that existed for millions of years while reliably and robustly preventing these people from gaining power and making a mess of things to a society that is basically run exclusively by these people and seems designed to empower them. As you know but others may not yet be aware, I have a hypothesis about how hierarchical civilization came to be. What's important to observe about this narrative is that the peaceful egalitarian societies did not voluntarily become hierarchical. They were coerced/conquered by hierarchical societies that formed from the aggregation of their exiles. This story of hierarchical societies devouring egalitarian ones via conquest and subjugation then repeats itself over and over again throughout history. A question for the room: Is there any documented instance of an egalitarian anarchist society voluntarily reforming itself to become hierarchical?
My basis for anarchism is fundamentally founded in this perspective that narcissism is the root problem to address. IMO, the indigenous people largely did a good job - they just made the mistake of externalizing their narcissism problems, and then the additional mistake of failing to prepare for the consequences of that decision. We just need to learn from their mistakes, and do what they did not: In addition to aggressively policing the narcissists that emerge from within, we need to account and prepare for the external threat represented by narcissistic individuals that exist outside of our society. Even a society that solves the exile problem for itself will still have to deal with the exile problem from others, and that generally means maintaining a strong military or otherwise maintaining some mechanism for defending itself against organized threats from hierarchical societies.
Identifying these bad behaviors is both easy and hard. If you know what to look for, it's really easy. If you don't, you're liable to fall for their manipulation. Simply learning about the various manipulative behaviors that narcissists engage in is the conceptually most straight-forward way to address this problem, and it is certainly effective. There are other ways, though. One thing that I've noticed is that narcissists will pretty reliably violate the rules of epistemologically sound argumentation whenever they start to try something funny. Simply educating people about logic (and logical fallacies) and the burden of proof would go a long way toward making them resilient to narcissistic manipulation. If we also teach people to take such violations very seriously, rather than just dismissing it with a simple "everyone is entitled to their own opinion", we would catch a lot of bullshit very early and stop a lot of narcissistic machination before it has a chance to gain any real traction. If you think about it, tolerance of unsound argumentation is a necessary condition for a society to be vulnerable to non-violent manipulation from bad actors of any sort.
I'm seeing a lot of people in the comments conflating centralization with hierarchy, and vice-versa, and this is a big problem. I want to make something very clear: Centralization does NOT imply hierarchy. This is very important to understand, as discarding the useful tool that is centralization out of fear of creating the horrible monster that is hierarchy will cripple our ability to achieve anything at all. But what is centralization? What is hierarchy? Why do people conflate the two?
Centralization is simply what happens when coordination or decision-making is delegated to a subset of the group. These coordinators or decision-makers take on apparently central roles because everybody needs the information/instruction that they provide in order to avoid doing redundant or pointless work. Centralization is desirable, because it means that people can specialize. Not everyone has to be involved in every process. Decisions can be made by those who are most qualified to make them, and everybody else can get on with their work without being interrupted about every little detail.
Hierarchy is what you get when you define an up-and-down axis of power. Some people are above others. Some people are below others. The people above have the power/authority to coerce the people below. Subordination is a crime that is basically defined as an individual defying the directives of an individual above them in the hierarchy. The existence of hierarchy does not strictly depend upon the existence of a particular social or governance structure within a group.
That said, hierarchies naturally tend to concentrate decision-making power in the hands of a few, and that's why hierarchy always seems to imply centralization in practice. It's hard to find examples of centralization that do not come with the trappings of hierarchy and coercion - you basically have to study the inner-workings of some worker-owned co-ops to find good examples. Combined with the fact that coercion is a concept that isn't part of common discourse (though I think that is starting to change), and it becomes easier to see why people might struggle to separate the two concepts.
We can have all of the benefits of centralized coordination without any of the drawbacks of hierarchy. We just need to establish a binding social contract that outlaws coercion, and aggressively enforce it. With these tools in hand, building public institutions or even a powerful military capable of rivaling modern civilization's best is all comfortably within the realm of possibility.
How is that not a form of coercion itself?
In most cases, we can assume that the people bound by the social contract agreed to the social contract as a condition of joining the group. In other words, they were not coerced into that behavior, and any penalties that they suffer as a result of violating the social contract are penalties that they agreed to as well (so long as said penalties are also outlined in the contract up front). It seems like coercion because bad actors typically resist the penalties imposed as a consequence of their bad behaviors, but it actually is not, because they agreed to all of it up front.
Things get tricky only when we consider the case where the social contract is imposed upon people who did not agree to it beforehand, which does apply in the case of a society that is doing external policing, or arguably in the case of children - they are subject to rules that they did not choose for themselves. In this case, we are coercing them, and we have to admit this one exception. We avoid the paradox of tolerance so long as the contract only allows society to coerce those individuals who break the rules of the social contract, which otherwise outlaws coercion. To actually justify this set of rules requires now that we reason about some broader objectives, like maximizing freedom or minimizing harm. I would imagine that the exact details of the social contract would end up as the subject of an ongoing discussion due to the difficult and sometimes ambiguous nature of the underlying objectives, though I still think that the amount of variation that we would see between different (non-narcissistic) groups would end up being rather small. This is the sort of thing that should be refined over time as we learn more about ourselves, our world, and how we would best fit into it.
That's fine if this is started from scratch, but if there was some revolution that overnight rid the world of capitalism, there would still be many who would never willingly accept any social contract. Pick any historical even you like, there is almost always some group that is in opposition. For the american revolution it was about 15-20% of the population who sided with England. If you want to get really depressing about it, in a 2011 CNN poll 23% said they'd sympathize most with the Confederacy.
Assuming similar numbers in our overnight revolution, what is to be done with those 20% that do not agree to join the group under this social contract?
And when they transition from childhood to adulthood, if they find that they do not wish to agree to this social contract, what is the process for handling that?
If someone does not agree to the social contract, but their disagreement is minor and we would expect them to still uphold at least a reasonably similar one, then we can let them find or make a community/society that adheres to that contract.
However, I think you are probably more interested in the case where they are very opposed to the nature of the contract, as in, they want coercion to be allowed in circumstances besides dealing with violators. Unfortunately, if we wish to avoid a paradox of tolerance, we have to revoke such a person's right to participate in society - any society - until such time as they come around (or possibly permanently, depending on the nature of the situation). This will inevitably involve the use of force. Why must we do this? If we allow people that believe coercion should be allowed outside of the context of enforcing rules to exist outside of our own society, then they will just do exactly what they did the first time we made that mistake. They'll accumulate, form a hierarchical society with a military, and start destroying things. Even if they do not directly attack other societies, the damage that they'll do to the environment will indirectly impact everyone else - and as we have seen with global warming, that damage can even be enough to threaten the existence of life on this planet itself.
Of course there will be people who won't accept a social contract that forbids coercion in the common case. Just like how egalitarian societies did not voluntarily become hierarchical ones, hierarchical societies are not going to voluntarily become egalitarian ones.
Are you proposing prison for those that disagree with the social contract?
I make no specific suggestion on how to deal with those that will not accept such a contract. Prison is but one possibility. I would encourage people to think about this problem, and see what they can come up with. What is the most humane way to deal with these people? The only real constraint is that the coercive actors (defined as those who would coerce outside of the terms of the social contract) must not be allowed to actually perform any coercion, and one should take measures to prevent collusion. Keep in mind that deception/misinformation is also a form of coercion, so one must be careful about how they are allowed to communicate with each other and with members of society, if they are allowed to communicate at all.